Jon Stewart proves corporations aren't people

[Russ_Watters]

Well yes, the curious change in the language of the law for non-profits from "exclusively" to "primarily" allowed for the practice of unlimited funds from anonymous Donors to effectively influence elections. I believe this error is being corrected.

That's nice. Doesn't have anything to do with your erroneous claim, but nice nonetheless. You're just throwing crap at a wall and hoping some sticks, and pretending you didn't say something when it doesn't.

The point is that anonymous corporate donors of very large sums of money have an inherent advantage over private individual donors. A few zeros is powerful incentive even as it only can count for 49% of the non-profit expenditures.

Well, no, your point in what I quoted was about for profit corporate donations.

But ok: yes, large not-for-profit political action companies do have an inherent advantage over individuals. That's why people join/donate to them! But more to the point, you find that distasteful. Sorry, but your distaste does not add-up to it being unConstitutional. Indeed, your view actually penalizes people for helping each other and increases inequality. Rich people have far more resources to do effective speech than notsorich people, but because of their larger numbers, notsorich people could (and do) counter-act that advantage by pooling their resources. You would prevent that.

 

[Write4U]

That's nice. Doesn't have anything to do with your erroneous claim, but nice nonetheless. You're just throwing crap at a wall and hoping some sticks, and pretending you didn't say something when it doesn't.

Well, no, your point in what I quoted was about for profit corporate donations.

Who donate large anonymous sums to PACs (which are non-profit).

But ok: yes, large not-for-profit political action companies do have an inherent advantage over individuals. That's why people join/donate to them! But more to the point, you find that distasteful.

Thank you for your agreement on "amplification".

Sorry, but your distaste does not add-up to it being unConstitutional. Indeed, your view actually penalizes people for helping each other and increases inequality.

I find it only distatsteful in that it penalizes personal donations by allocating it for purposes other than the donor's intention. 49% of that money may be applied for political purposes, as long as 51% is used for social services.
In the past a non-profit organization providing social services was exclusively prohibited from engaging in any kind of politics at all. This is where I find the the subtle switch from "exclusively" to "primarily" distatsteful.

IMO. If you want Your Voice heard on a Political issue, tell me Who You Are without engaging in "Impersonal Transaction" as an anonymous donors. It is misleading to the public, as it is not the voice of the public but the voice of Big Money being heard. How can you know without "lifting the veil"?

Piercing the corporate veil
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Piercing the corporate veil or lifting the corporate veil is a legal decision to treat the rights or duties of a corporation as the rights or liabilities of its shareholders. Usually a corporation is treated as a separate legal person, which is solely responsible for the debts it incurs and the sole beneficiary of the credit it is owed. Common law countries usually uphold this principle of separate personhood, but in exceptional situations may "pierce" or "lift" the corporate veil.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piercing_the_corporate_veil

Rich people have far more resources to do effective speech than notsorich people, but because of their larger numbers, notsorich people could (and do) counter-act that advantage by pooling their resources. You would prevent that.

I disagree.
On the contrary, I am saying that individual people's donations for specific purposes are used to support political agendas which they do not necessarily support.
IOW, no separation, no checks and balances, no accountability. Phew, no wonder the stockmarket is going through the roof.

Not a bad performance for the rights and privileges of corporate individuals, compared to the rest of our economic and social infrastructure of individuals.

 

[Gage]

Re Jon Stewart clips
Most can't be watched outside the US for copyright reasons unfortunately.
Very talented man.

Wow I would have thought they played him everywhere. That's unfortunate.

 

[iceaura]

- - - If that wealthy guy wants to contribute money to the town government to prevent police layoffs and protect his own neighborhood - why the heck would you consider him a criminal?

I wouldn't. Nowhere here have I even hinted that wealthy people giving money to their governments is a bad thing.

On the other hand, a wealthy guy giving money to otherwise underpaid police officers is corrupting them, and no sane citizenry would allow it. Such behavior certainly is not Constitutionally protected, in the US, and that lack of protection is comically obvious if restricted to the First Amendment. People say money talks, but they don't mistake it for the speech itself.

You may feel that the only way to determine if a crime has been committed is via mindreaders - but I find that courts work quite well.

The courts, in agreement with me, have determined that laws against farmers, corporations, individuals pulled over for traffic violations, and so forth, giving money to police officers, regulatory officials, building inspectors, and the like, are completely within Constitutional prerogatives of government. No one has to determine the intent of such obviously corrupt behavior, in order to prosecute it under the law.

Where they have parted company with me is in carving out a bizarre and inexplicable exception for corporations giving money to legislators, politicians. That arena of bribery and corruption, and no other similar, is now officially an arena of "speech" by a "person".

 

[billvon]

I wouldn't. Nowhere here have I even hinted that wealthy people giving money to their governments is a bad thing. On the other hand, a wealthy guy giving money to otherwise underpaid police officers is corrupting them . . .

You just contradicted yourself.

Should, or should not, a wealthy local be allowed to contribute large amounts of money to a financially strapped police force?

The courts, in agreement with me, have determined that laws against farmers, corporations, individuals pulled over for traffic violations, and so forth, giving money to police officers, regulatory officials, building inspectors, and the like, are completely within Constitutional prerogatives of government.

Yes. Those are laws against bribery, which is a crime. (Bribery is giving money for someone to alter what they do in your favor.) Contributions are not a crime.

Where they have parted company with me is in carving out a bizarre and inexplicable exception for corporations giving money to legislators, politicians.

Sorry you find it bizarre and inexplicable. It's pretty straightforward - bribery is illegal, contributions are not.

That arena of bribery and corruption, and no other similar, is now officially an arena of "speech" by a "person".

So is funding a parade, or funding your own ad campaign for a candidate, or funding a petition drive, or buying up billboards, or buying up ad space in newspapers. All those "arenas of corruption" are protected as well.

 

[iceaura]

You just contradicted yourself.

Reread. I didn't.

Should, or should not, a wealthy local be allowed to contribute large amounts of money to a financially strapped police force?

Directly to the officers of the force? Of course not. To the town government, to spend as it sees fit? Sure.

Yes. Those are laws against bribery, which is a crime. (Bribery is giving money for someone to alter what they do in your favor.) Contributions are not a crime.

Contributions like that, which are indistinguishable from bribes, were a crime in the US up until last year. The only reason they are not a crime now is that five Supreme Court justices appointed by famously corporate shills of politicians and not exactly known for clear thinking on conflicts of interest, declared in public that the official position of the US Supreme Court was that handouts of large sums of money were acts of speech, and corporations who performed them were "persons" as described in the Constitution.

Bizarre and inexplicable is perhaps too far - such behavior is in fact explicable, quite plausibly. It's just that one doesn't want to believe the situation is that bad.

Sorry you find it bizarre and inexplicable. It's pretty straightforward - bribery is illegal, contributions are not.

Bribery is no longer illegal. It's Constitutionally protected speech.

 

[Write4U]

I wouldn't. Nowhere here have I even hinted that wealthy people giving money to their governments is a bad thing.

On the other hand, a wealthy guy giving money to otherwise underpaid police officers is corrupting them, and no sane citizenry would allow it. Such behavior certainly is not Constitutionally protected, in the US, and that lack of protection is comically obvious if restricted to the First Amendment. People say money talks, but they don't mistake it for the speech itself.

The courts, in agreement with me, have determined that laws against farmers, corporations, individuals pulled over for traffic violations, and so forth, giving money to police officers, regulatory officials, building inspectors, and the like, are completely within Constitutional prerogatives of government. No one has to determine the intent of such obviously corrupt behavior, in order to prosecute it under the law.

Where they have parted company with me is in carving out a bizarre and inexplicable exception for corporations giving money to legislators, politicians. That arena of bribery and corruption, and no other similar, is now officially an arena of "speech" by a "person".

Well said.

 

[billvon]

Directly to the officers of the force? Of course not. To the town government, to spend as it sees fit? Sure.

Huh. I thought you were arguing that the wealthy should not be allowed to give large amounts of money to politicians.

Contributions like that, which are indistinguishable from bribes, were a crime in the US up until last year.

I agree. However, contributions which ARE distinguishable from bribes, should not be.

Bribery is no longer illegal. It's Constitutionally protected speech.

No, bribery is still illegal, and it has a clear legal definition.

 

[iceaura]

Huh. I thought you were arguing that the wealthy should not be allowed to give large amounts of money to politicians.

Yep.

Or are you claiming that money going to a government is the same as money going to politicians? That my taxes are being handed to my Senator, my Representative?

I agree. However, contributions which ARE distinguishable from bribes, should not be.

No gifts of large sums from an industrial entity to a political campaign or politician are distinguishable from a bribe.

No, bribery is still illegal, and it has a clear legal definition.

That formerly clear legal definition was declared unConstitutional by the US Supreme Court.

Meanwhile, merely legalizing bribery does not cause it to vanish - one can have legal bribery, and in the US we appear to have quite a bit of it these days.